You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ArisKatsaris comments on The elephant in the room, AMA - Less Wrong Discussion

22 Post author: calcsam 12 May 2011 02:59PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (428)

Comments (428)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 15 May 2011 07:56:32PM *  5 points [-]

Let me describe two hypothetical scenarios:

  • US: By the year 2060, same-sex marriage is recognized in atleast 3/4ths of US states.

  • LDS: By the year 2060, the LDS church has accepted the validity of same-sex marriage, (perhaps due to a new divine revelation).

Which probabilities would you assign to P(US), P(LDS)?

What probability would you assign to P(LDS|US)?

Comment author: calcsam 30 May 2011 05:00:01PM *  -2 points [-]

Hmm...I anticipate the church could endorse same-sex civil unions at some point, but stop short of calling them marriage.

For actual same-sex marriage, I would say that p(LDS) = 0.15, p(US) = 0.7, p(LDS|US) ~0.2; I would guess halfway between p(LDS) and (p(LDS)/p(US)).

Curious why you asked; there is a follow-up question that seems like the reason you asked the initial question. I'll see if you do.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 30 May 2011 06:37:05PM 3 points [-]

Curious why you asked; there is a follow-up question that seems like the reason you asked the initial question. I'll see if you do.

In the past the LDS church seems to have had "revelations" that caused it to change its teachings to follow US mainstream attitudes in other respects -- banning polygamy, no longer discriminating against black people, etc...

I tried to sort-of quantify your expectation for this trend to continue. You may comment on the issue in the general, I didn't have a specific follow-up question in mind.

Comment author: Arandur 02 August 2011 05:45:18PM 1 point [-]

Allow me to expand on calcsam's explanation.

The policy of declining blacks the priesthood was one that rested very uneasily on the Church for some time; one imagines that, had the change in policy been instigated by public feeling, the Church would have bent much sooner, particularly with all the pressure it was getting from the NAACP at the time. Consider this statement from Harold B. Lee, then-president of the Church, six years before the policy changed:

For those who don't believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks...It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we’re just waiting for that time.

(Data taken from Wikipedia), which can hardly be said to be a Mormon apologist site. :P)

Comment author: calcsam 30 May 2011 06:58:28PM *  -1 points [-]

That's definitely true. And that's why I assign p(LDS|US) > p(LDS). (I thought you would ask about that).

In current LDS thought, doctrines on the nature of the family are central -- in a way that polygamy was in its day, but that the "black priesthood ban" wasn't. That's why (imho) it is less likely to change.

What it took to prompt the polygamy ban was basically the alternative of destruction at the hands of the federal government. The language afterwards was not that "God said it was bad to do this" but "God showed us what the government would do if we didn't stop."

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit